Monday, March 28, 2011
Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Techdirt: "In this case, despite plenty of other lawsuits that found appropriation art to be legal, the judge ruled that this is infringing, leading many to predict a pretty massive shakeup in the modern art world, where this kind of appropriation art has become pretty common. What strikes me as most troubling is that the judge's decision appears to rest mainly on what the artist's stated intent was in creating these paintings, and deciding that since he was neither commenting on the original works nor the subjects of the images, it's no longer a protected fair use.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This article is really disturbing. Judging an artists intent is scary and it leads down a short path to censorship and governmental thought control. Copyrights and intellectual property need to be protected but this for the wrong reasons. It this mode of thought persists. The Andy Warhol Museum is suddenly full of contraband.
Ok, this is just stupid. If you are going to do art work that is directly referencing another art work, then just go ahead and cite it. Even though you have changed it and made it your own you can still say where you got it from and your influences. Shepard Fairey got sued because of his Obama hope poster because although, he had adapted it, it was still to close to the original. I don't understand why in art is so taboo to cite your work, in academia it is done all the time. Also frankly no art, made in our time period is going to be original so you should probably have multiple sources. Also though I don’t think that anyone should be saying what is and what is not art. This is censorship and everyone should have freedom to do what they want to create art. Weather the art is good or not is another question.
I completely understand the judge's ruling if he was only ruling on the infringement laws, but as soon as the article said he was judging the artist's intent, well that's dumb. The court has no right to say what is a "good" or "bad" reason for artwork. Whatever the artist wants to say is his or her choice. The court cannot and should not censor artwork. I agree with Dale that if the government started to do that it would be not long before most art was suddenly not allowed. I also agree with Zoe that he should have just cited Cariou's work. This whole thing might have been avoided if he had said he was using someone else's work.
I feel like Zoe has it right on the money. Unless you're creating a brand new art form that has never been done in the history of forever, you're probably drawing influences from somewhere other than your own mind. Granted, I don't think photoshopping a guitar and funny eyes onto a photo of a tribesman constitutes as adapting a piece to your own style, but I'm not going to go out and start defining art like those judges. While I do feel like a lawsuit was necessary to defend the original artist and his work, to redefine art with a court case is a step in the entirely wrong direction.
Post a Comment